MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768363102 · doi:10.1017/jog.2017.73

A complete map of Greenland ice velocity derived from satellite data collected over 20 years

2017· article· en· W2768363102 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ian Joughin, Ben Smith, Ian M. Howat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Space AgencyJapan Aerospace Exploration AgencyU.S. Geological SurveyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsGeologyIce sheetGeodesyGroenlandiaSynthetic aperture radarIce streamGreenland ice sheetRemote sensingGlaciologyGlacierSatelliteInterferometryCryosphereClimatologyGeomorphologySea icePaleontologyStratigraphyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT While numerous maps of Greenland ice flow velocity exist, most have gaps in coverage and/or accuracy is limited. We processed a large volume of synthetic aperture radar and Landsat 8 imagery collected between 1995 and 2015 to produce a nearly complete map of ice flow velocity for Greenland at a far greater accuracy than most prior products. We evaluated the accuracy of this map by comparing it with a variety of measured and estimated velocities. For the slow-moving interior of the ice sheet, where estimates are determined from interferometric phase, the errors are ~2 m a −1 or better. For coastal areas, where estimates are determined entirely from speckle- or feature-tracking methods, errors are 2–3 m a −1 , which is in good agreement with the estimated formal errors. Especially for the slow-moving majority of the ice sheet, this map provides an important source of data for numerous types of glaciological studies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations291
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaciologySame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207